NationStates Jolt Archive

Were I to invade a region and decide for security reasons to change the password every 5 minutes during the update would my distribution of the password every 5 minutes be considered spamming?

This is a fascinating question, and I have been given permission to make the ruling on it.

There are several issues to be considered:


The password must be distributed.
Telegrams every 5 minutes would be considered spam.
Regional Posts every 5 minutes would be considered spam.
I briefly considered allowing you to post the password in the factbook entry (thus not spamming communications), but realized that this would spam the Regional Happenings, and thus would still not be allowed.
For that matter, changing the password also adds a line of text to the Regional Happenings. Thus, changing the password every 5 minutes would also result in spam.


Thus, I would rule the telegrams, regional messages, factbook entries, and password changing to be spam. Besides that, your idea is perfectly legal.

In other words, as long as you don't spam, you may change the PW as often as you like.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

What would be an allowable period?

You *could* post it in the forums. . . :twisted:

Better yet. Put in the factbook entry that "If you want the password, telegram me." Then send the current password to the people who ask.

~Bas

Better yet. Put in the factbook entry that "If you want the password, telegram me." Then send the current password to the people who ask.

~Bas
You are required to send it to all natives almost as soon as you change it though.

Can that rule be modified slightly for this special situation?

Can that rule be modified slightly for this special situation?
I, in my full capacity of annoying player of NationStates, wish to oppose the changing of this rule. It is unfair to the natives who must wait to get a response to their telegram each time, after which, the password may be immediately changed.

Bas, check TMs.

Got it, Qaal. I support the ruling made by Sal.

This is a fascinating question, and I have been given permission to make the ruling on it.

There are several issues to be considered:


The password must be distributed.
Telegrams every 5 minutes would be considered spam.
Regional Posts every 5 minutes would be considered spam.
I briefly considered allowing you to post the password in the factbook entry (thus not spamming communications), but realized that this would spam the Regional Happenings, and thus would still not be allowed.
For that matter, changing the password also adds a line of text to the Regional Happenings. Thus, changing the password every 5 minutes would also result in spam.


Thus, I would rule the telegrams, regional messages, factbook entries, and password changing to be spam. Besides that, your idea is perfectly legal.

In other words, as long as you don't spam, you may change the PW as often as you like.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

I can understnad why you would say this illegal. How often can the pw be changed in succession though? I don't see how giving a deinfinive answer could enocrage any geriefing, it would be good to know where the line is.

The Basenji: Fisz did something similar and was deleted for griefing. I'd say that's a "no."

I'd appreciate a mod ruling on what a minimum period is for changing a password while invading legally. 30 minutes? An hour? Two? A day? If it's anything over 3 hours it's ridiculous.

I feel a safer time period between password changes is about two hours. Plus, when you do decide to change it, try fluctuating between different methods of informing your members each time. Another possible thing to do is to make a website with the password on it and tell the natives to check it everytime they get on. Basically, by putting the password on the website and informing them of the website (through telegrams) it should fit in the rules.

It is not the Native's responsibility to retrieve the password, it is the Invader's responsibility to distribute it promptly.

I see your point, as it would require extra effort by the native to check a second website.
I just have one question, what would cause anyone to deem it necessary to change a password every five minutes?

Libertine Empire of Desudoragon

I just have one question, what would cause anyone to deem it necessary to change a password every five minutes?


Paranoia?

Well....um. Okay. LOL! I just am not paranoid I guess.

I just have one question, what would cause anyone to deem it necessary to change a password every five minutes?


Paranoia?

There's actually quite some tactical advantage to be gained by invaders here. Imagine 20 natives in a region and a password change every five minutes. Result:

- Have a script to change the password to a randomly generated string and then TM all the natives. Simple enough, and the invader can go to sleep.

- The 15 second anti-spam measure will cause the TMing of all natives take at least 5 minutes in and of itself. If they start with the most idle natives, the active ones will have close to no time to get anyone to jump into their region to help them against the invaders.

- As a 'bonus', with a message sent every 5 minutes the invader script completely clears the TM inbox of all natives every 75 minutes. Any outside contact better not be using TMs...


The remarkable part I see here is that MrNonchallant even bothered to ask whether 5 minutes is ok.

Personally, I would suggest disallowing scripted password changes at all. There's better and more devious ways of doing this, which MrNonchallant apparently hasn't thought of yet. I won't be making any suggestions ;)

My basic objection to this whole concept is that game plays (password changes for the purpose of defending/holding a region) are being done by a script, and that in this case natives as well as other invaders would be playing against a computer program, not a fellow player.

Ballotonia

This is a fascinating question, and I have been given permission to make the ruling on it.

There are several issues to be considered:


The password must be distributed.
Telegrams every 5 minutes would be considered spam.
Regional Posts every 5 minutes would be considered spam.
I briefly considered allowing you to post the password in the factbook entry (thus not spamming communications), but realized that this would spam the Regional Happenings, and thus would still not be allowed.
For that matter, changing the password also adds a line of text to the Regional Happenings. Thus, changing the password every 5 minutes would also result in spam.


Thus, I would rule the telegrams, regional messages, factbook entries, and password changing to be spam. Besides that, your idea is perfectly legal.

In other words, as long as you don't spam, you may change the PW as often as you like.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

I can understnad why you would say this illegal. How often can the pw be changed in succession though? I don't see how giving a deinfinive answer could enocrage any geriefing, it would be good to know where the line is.

If chaning the pw over and over again is against the rules if done too often, can we get a ruling on how often we can change the pw?

Never been in this situation, but I would love to know the rules before I ever got to this situation. Or, more importantly, I simply love rules. Even if I don't encounter it, would like to know what the rules are, if possible.

- As a 'bonus', with a message sent every 5 minutes the invader script completely clears the TM inbox of all natives every 75 minutes. Any outside contact better not be using TMs...


Heh... which shows that Salusa was clearly right in naming it spam.

- As a 'bonus', with a message sent every 5 minutes the invader script completely clears the TM inbox of all natives every 75 minutes. Any outside contact better not be using TMs...


Heh... which shows that Salusa was clearly right in naming it spam.*would not consider it a bonus* Anyway, I'd appreciate a ruling on minimum time. Otherwise I may assume 6 minutes is fine. This whole being ignored when asking multiple times politely and in the right place thing is annoying and as a national and alliance leader not something I'm accustomed to.

Fair enough.

Temporary Ruling Until An Official One Can Be Made: Once per update.

The remarkable part I see here is that MrNonchallant even bothered to ask whether 5 minutes is ok.
It was a primarily academic question, one that might suggest weakness in the must telegram all natives rule. I was considering using a script to do that as a founder, but apparently even just changing it without telegrams would be unnacceptable. Still, I'd be interested in the answer as keeping my options open is always a Good Thing (tm). During the day changing it like that is excessive, but it'd be very useful for the update. There's just got to be some better way to distribute passwords, because right now the required method is horribly flawed.

Edit: In responce to Hack's ruling, AGH. At least twice, pretty please. :(

Fair enough.

Temporary Ruling Until An Official One Can Be Made: Once per update.

I would prefer 2 per update, but I think this is close enough to fair.

Perhaps if you were to just quit pushing this issue, and refer back to Sal and My first posts on this thread, you'd find you're only going downhill from where you want to be.

I would've thought he was just questioning the situation, and is not warranting your grumpiness....

Though your actions of invading a region I hope are rule abiding, changing the password every five minutes would in fact be spam as others have made clear.

However I would like to make my opinnion clear.

I once lived in another region that was invaded and griefed.
The attack began with the spamming of our board and regional happenings. This blocked us from seeing exactly who was coming in and when. This event was quite frustrating to us and when I woke up the next morning I was in the rejected realms along with many of my companions.
No one was left in the region except for 3 of the invaders.

Mr.Nonchalant being an experienced player I would assume that you are an Atlantic Alliance memeber?

Still, I will not be biased to the defender regions or invaders such as yourself. As long as you follow the rules of engagement and do not spam, eject massive amounts of nations or fail to issue the regional password to natives then I am sure you will be left alone but the Moderating Team.

If I may help, I suggest that a password can be changed every 12 hours, should someone actually be active for 24 hours.

This way the password could be changed at least twice a day.
Any more than that would be spam.

As the last ruling was unofficial, it may not remain.

Might I remind the whole of the Nationstates community that this ruling would not have even been made, and it would have fallen under standard spam and "Play Nice" rules had it not been for MrNonchalant's pressing us for a hard ruling and then threatening us but just barely staying outside of what we ruled to be illegal while not addressing any of the issues that were the source of the ruling. This demonstates to me that he was not acting in good faith, and it is thanks to him that you now have the ruling, just as he requested.

I would point all of you (but especially MrNonchalant) to another thread in this forum:(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112789&start=160).

... Intentionally or not, it reads as though players are seeking to define the line not so that they can keep well within the line, but so that they can seek out those spots where the line may be gray or uneven, and exploit that to their advantage. It's as though they are less interested in where the loop lies, and more interested in where the loophole can be found. I'm baffled by the continuous string of questions that are variations on a theme of "This is questionable and probably not legal but since it's not explicity outlawed, can I do it?" ...

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

I would've thought he was just questioning the situation, and is not warranting your grumpiness....

Read Sal's post...

I hope this is over, I don't much like crashers. :x

had it not been for MrNonchalant's pressing us for a hard ruling and then threatening us but just barely staying outside of what we ruled to be illegal while not addressing any of the issues that were the source of the ruling.
Whoa, whoa. Where'd I warrant the hostility? *grovels* I don't remember threatening, though after having it asked 3 times by multiple people and being completely ignored, not even a reason for not ruling, I was a tad disconcerted as is I think is understandable.
thus, the less desireable response you wound up with is a direct result of your inability to accept a Mod ruling you dont like.
Utterly wrong, it wasn't that I disagreed with the ruling. It was that there appeared to be a line somewhere, but no real definition of that line. I mean, I could step over it and be instantly deleted without ever having been informed what the legal minimum was. I'm not looking for a loophole, I'm looking not to be deleted. *grovels some more*

Edit: Wow I've managed to misinterpret my way into moderators hating me. I luff0r you guys.

...says the leader of one of the more notorious region crashing (not invading, crashing) groups here...


Sal and I BOTH gave you an answer. You choose to not like that answer, and thus choose to interpret it in a manner befitting what you wish to do. Your constant pushing of an issue after it's been responded to is most definately an attempt to find a loophole.


Once again: You can change the password as often as you like - as long as it does not spam the regional happenings, regional messageboard, telegram boxes, etc. Nor can it simply be posted somwehere. It must be telegrammed to each and every native - whether in the region or not.

Now, it cannot become more clearly defined for reasons that we choose to keep to ourselves at this point - mainly to keep anyone from finding a loophole.



Once again, your continued pushing for a black and white line has caused you to have a line you dont like and now you're bitching about that. Make up your mind.

Sal and I BOTH gave you an answer. You choose to not like that answer, and thus choose to interpret it in a manner befitting what you wish to do. Your constant pushing of an issue after it's been responded to is most definately an attempt to find a loophole.No, it's not. You have quite a few powers, but forcing me to think a particular thing is not one of them. You can tell me that I meant something, you can delete me over it, you can UN ban me over it, you can IP or forum ban me over it, but none of that means that's what I meant. As it happens it isn't what I meant.

Your answer was far too open to interpretation, by which I mean as vague as possible. I pushed for a more defined line because frankly I believed there already was one but one that you weren't going to say, meaning I could violate a rule I'd had no idea I'd violated. That's absurd. The issue was not satisfactorily responded to. There is no way you can find a loophole in a defined line, you're either not crossing it or you've crossed it.

My organization has always tried to follow the rules, even when we disagreed with them. True there have definitely been instances where people under my command have blatantly broken a rule and yet I've defended them, but that's something any commander would do. I've always told my forces not to break rules, it's in our training material. Ultimately I like a lot of what moderators have done. I don't like personal insults (note crashing not invading), I don't like the password distribution rule (I mean, why not put it somewhere public and then give the natives the URL?), and I don't like you ignoring Dog Lake's apparent circumvention of what I've been given to believe was a permanent IP ban (correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise I luff0r mods.

So a response stating that as long as you're not spamming any boards/telegram inboxes, the new password is sent to all natives before it's changed again, and it's not just simply posted somewhere that the natives have to go find it, you can change it as often as you like is not sufficient?


Ok. Then we'll just go with Hack's version. Once per update.

Ok. Then we'll just go with Hack's version. Once per update.

Is this the 12-hour update or the 24-hour update?

That depends on how much further MrNonchalant decides to push his luck.

Since it doesn't look like a straight answer is forthcomming, I'm gonna play it safe and go with 24 hrs.

You know it's great when the appointed members of a justice system flamebait.

You know it's great when the appointed members of a justice system flamebait.

Flamebait? No. Frustration? Yes.

You asked a perfectly reasonable question, and recieved an equally reasonable answer.

Unfortunately, it seems you didn't like that answer, and decided to continue to press the issue. Nobody else has had a need to change the password every 5 minutes, nor every 6, nor even every hour.

You were told that you could change the password as often as you liked, provided you didn't spam regional events or native's telegram boxes. But, that wasn't good enough. You wanted a hard rule. Were you planning on sitting there with a stop-watch, making sure that the changes could happen the very second the time period elapsed?

It's loophole hunting like this that make codified state laws thousands of pages long. We're trying to keep things simple now, but you don't seem to like that.

Well, tough. The ruling has been made. Had you let it stand at "don't spam" you would have been fine, but now you're stuck with once per update. Maybe you should be less interested in walking the finest possible line, and start looking at following the spirit of the rules.

I don't know why you bother, Hack. You know that some members are still going to find whatever loophole is possible (such as the 'Is this the 12-hour update or the 24-hour update?' issue just brought up; no offense Goobergunchia) to exploit and circumvent any rules created while making it harder for the honest nations to function.

I don't know why you bother, Hack. You know that some members are still going to find whatever loophole is possible (such as the 'Is this the 12-hour update or the 24-hour update?' issue just brought up; no offense Goobergunchia) to exploit and circumvent any rules created while making it harder for the honest nations to function.

Goober's question was legitimate. "Well, then how about every six minutes?" isn't.

It was primarily because my question wasn't being answered. I wasn't looking for 5 minutes, I wasn't looking for six minutes. I was looking for what constitutes spamming in this case, because frankly I hadn't a clue. Yes, I am planning to use a stopwatch, but I never seriously wanted 5 or 6 minutes. Those were primarily hypothetical questions to try to point out weaknesses with the rules. The responce I got was "just don't spam, and yes 5 minutes constitutes spamming." The next logical question is, well what does constitute spam then? It wasn't just me who asked it, others wanted to know too. Now you're pretty much admitting to putting an unreasonable rule in pretty much to spite what you deemed a loophole hunter. I wouldn't care, except the rule is unreasonable.

I don't believe what I asked warranted this kind of hostility and telling me that I better not argue the point or I'll have further sanctions levied against me is practically an invitation to go on a spamming rampage saying that mods are unfair. That is why it's a flamebait. Anyone who says anything of the kind should realize easily that any sane person would respond to that kind of ultimatum by pushing the point, especially when that anyone is in a position of authority.

It was primarily because my question wasn't being answered. I wasn't looking for 5 minutes, I wasn't looking for six minutes. I was looking for what constitutes spamming in this case, because frankly I hadn't a clue. Yes, I am planning to use a stopwatch, but I never seriously wanted 5 or 6 minutes.

So why didn't you drop the ad absurdium argument, and simply say "I'm wanting to do it every hour, can I?"

And, really, wouldn't logic dictate that spam doesn't have a hard or fast rule? A region where the boards clear themselves every ten minutes probably has a different definition of spam than a region who's last message was 50 days ago.

So why didn't you drop the ad absurdium argument, and simply say "I'm wanting to do it every hour, can I?"

And, really, wouldn't logic dictate that spam doesn't have a hard or fast rule? A region where the boards clear themselves every ten minutes probably has a different definition of spam than a region who's last message was 50 days ago.True, but then some definition of spam not reliant on time could apply, no definition of any kind was offered. I used the absurd argument in the first place because I was attempting to point out the secondary implementation problems a certain rule causes, and in the second place because no answer was forthcoming.

That is why it's a flamebait. Anyone who says anything of the kind should realize easily that any sane person would respond to that kind of ultimatum by pushing the point, especially when that anyone is in a position of authority.

Just because you felt the urge to push the point further doesn't mean it's the norm. Perhaps it's important to stress here that while you enjoy a position of authority in-game, your position in the Moderation forum is that of just another regular player.

True, but then some definition of spam not reliant on time could apply, no definition of any kind was offered.

Well, think about it. What could be a loop-hole free non-time dependent definition of spam? First one would try a definition, then loopholes would be found (and abused?), they'd be plugged by extra qualifications, more loopholes, more text... The lengthier the ruling, the more space for loopholes to exist. Eventually we'd have this huge piece of formal legislation that some players would comb through like lawyers. I object to that, since I'm just playing this game for fun and relaxation ;)

Ballotonia

I have to side with MrNonchalant on this one. You say, "play nice, we can't define gray areas or people will exploit them," but a thousand and one threads pop up in this forum because punitive action was taken against a player for actions in a gray area (the latest probably being "moderators over-stepping their bounds?"). I personally, when contemplating something that might not be "playing nice," prefer to do as much research into it as possible before I'm warned/deleted for something that was never against the rules. And before you say, "if in doubt, don't do it," let me point out that that is the best way to encourage players to try to go under mod raidar, without asking about anything first - and then maybe getting warned for it.

And, really, wouldn't logic dictate that spam doesn't have a hard or fast rule? A region where the boards clear themselves every ten minutes probably has a different definition of spam than a region who's last message was 50 days ago.

This is, in fact, what Sal and I were attempting to allow for. Too bad MrNonchalant doesnt know when to stop pushing his luck.

Just because you felt the urge to push the point further doesn't mean it's the norm. Perhaps it's important to stress here that while you enjoy a position of authority in-game, your position in the Moderation forum is that of just another regular player.Again with the misinterpretation. 1. I meant the mod being in a position of authority. 2. It is the norm, "don't say anything or we'll target you and your organization unfairly" was basically what I was told. That's what "don't push your luck," buddy, is code for. Anyone would respond to that negatively.
Well, think about it. What could be a loop-hole free non-time dependent definition of spam? First one would try a definition, then loopholes would be found (and abused?), they'd be plugged by extra qualifications, more loopholes, more text... The lengthier the ruling, the more space for loopholes to exist. Eventually we'd have this huge piece of formal legislation that some players would comb through like lawyers. I object to that, since I'm just playing this game for fun and relaxation
I agree. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with a non-time-dependant definition of spam. But I was told not to spam and that 5 minutes was spamming. You're telling me that a non-time-dependant definition of spam is too exploitable therefore impossible. Therefore there must somewhere be a time definition of spam that I'm missing. No? It's not defined because you think people will find loopholes in it? Well golly-gee. That must mean that before that ruling I could of technically spammed but gotten off with only a warning because no where was there a definition of spam. Now granted spam is defined in the american heritage dictionary, and I quote: "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail."

had it not been for MrNonchalant's pressing us for a hard ruling and then threatening us but just barely staying outside of what we ruled to be illegal while not addressing any of the issues that were the source of the ruling.
Whoa, whoa. Where'd I warrant the hostility? *grovels* I don't remember threatening, though after having it asked 3 times by multiple people and being completely ignored, not even a reason for not ruling, I was a tad disconcerted as is I think is understandable.

Attempting to avoid stepping on any toes, on one side of the situation or the other, I can tell you from observation that if the mods give an answer you find insufficent, and add to their post that they would prefer not to be more specific-- they seem to view you pushing for an answer as almost beligenrant or going against their wishes to simply put up a fight.

These are my observations, and I am sure I likely wrong. But, take that as it might be, that and a dollar and half with buy you a cup of water in Washington, DC.

EDIT: Looking through the remaining posts, you might disagree but if you can't se the reason why they don't want to give out the exact guidlines, then it is simply because you want to play the part of "difficult." Disagree, fine, but it is clear why the current rules stand a bit vague.

Also, you'll grow more cucumbers with crap then with honey. However, since you are attempting have a discusion with mods on an issue and not grow cucumbers, you might want to reign in your temper a tad and try the honey angle instead (meant as advice, not in any negative manner).

It would be good if you were a bit smarter with how you discuss the issue with moderators though, it can bury any point or credibility you have with them.

Afterall, half of what you say is how you come across.

They never said they'd prefer to not be more specific. They were just ignoring the question, similar to how they're ignoring this thread. Seriously, when a player wants a clarification of a rule that he will later be bound to silence and hostility shouldn't be acceptable answers.

They never said they'd prefer to not be more specific.

Not being specific is SOP.

They never said they'd prefer to not be more specific.

Not being specific is SOP.So we're not supposed to know the rules we're being governed by?

They never said they'd prefer to not be more specific.

Not being specific is SOP.So we're not supposed to know the rules we're being governed by?

No, you are supposed to know them. However, we aren't going to completely codify them.

Think of it as "common law" as opposed to statutory.

Some times common sense prevails. While I don't generally prefer shadows or grey lines, this just makes sense Non.

I would ask you to simply question why you would want to change the pw every 6 minutes. Likely a reason why you might want to, might be tied to why you wouldn't be allowed to.

I'm not making any sort of implication as to why you are really trying to do this, but I really can't imagine any good reason why you want to change the pw so often.

If you are simply looking for info and got carried away with your examples, then that I could understand. Still, I think this is liekly a grety area we can accept, to be raised again if you feel you are treated unfarily in the future if you are ever warned about this due to being given no clear borderline.

I don't see any reason to argue. Once an update seems quite straight-forward to me. And for the sake of activity I'd say it would be the 12 hour one, thus 2 a day @ 1 an update.